Taylor v. Power Distributing LLC et al
Filing
23
OPINION AND ORDER: The Plaintiff is ORDERED to file a jurisdictional statement to supplement the record by 9/26/2016, that properly alleges his own domicile, and therefore citizenship. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael G Gotsch, Sr on 9/12/16. (jld)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
JAMES S. TAYLOR,
Plaintiff,
v.
POWER DISTRIBUTING, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CAUSE NO: 3:16-cv-41-MGG
OPINION and ORDER
Plaintiff filed his complaint in this personal injury case on January 28, 2016, based on
diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Doc. No. 1 at 1–2. The complaint
alleges, among other things, that “[o]n information and belief, the defendant Power Distributing,
LLC is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Illinois, with its principal place of
business in Illinois.” Doc. No. 1 at 1, ¶ 2.
However, Plaintiff’s jurisdictional statement as to Power Distributing is inadequate
because it fails to properly allege Power Distributing’s citizenship. The state in which a limited
liability company (“LLC”) is organized is immaterial for purposes of determining diversity
jurisdiction; an LLC’s citizenship “for purposes of . . . diversity jurisdiction is the citizenship of
its members.” Cosgrove v. Bartolotta, 150 F.3d 729, 731 (7th Cir. 1998). Therefore, the Court
must be advised of the identity of each member of Power Distributing, LLC, and such member’s
citizenship. See Hicklin Eng’g, L.C. v. Bartell, 439 F.3d 346, 347 (7th Cir. 2006); see also
generally Guar. Nat’l Title Co. v. J.E.G. Assocs., 101 F.3d 57, 59 (7th Cir. 1996) (explaining
that the court would “need to know the name and citizenship(s)” of each partner for diversity
jurisdiction purposes).
Moreover, citizenship must be “traced through multiple levels” for those members who
are a partnership or an LLC, as anything less can result in a remand for want of jurisdiction. Mut.
Assignment & Indem. Co. v. Lind-Waldock & Co., LLC, 364 F.3d 858, 861 (7th Cir. 2004). And
residency of an individual is meaningless for purposes of diversity jurisdiction; an individual’s
citizenship is determined by his or her domicile. Dakuras v. Edwards, 312 F.3d 256, 258 (7th
Cir. 2002); see Heinen v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 671 F.3d 669, 670 (7th Cir. 2012) (“But
residence may or may not demonstrate citizenship, which depends on domicile–that is to say, the
state in which a person intends to live over the long run.”); Guar. Nat’l Title Co., 101 F.3d at 5859 (explaining that statements concerning a party’s “residency” are not proper allegations of
citizenship as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332).
Here, Speedway LLC provided the Court with the necessary information regarding the
citizenship of its members. Neither Plaintiff nor Power Distributing has done the same for
Power Distributing. Accordingly, Defendant Power Distributing, LLC, is ORDERED to file a
jurisdictional statement to supplement the record by September 26, 2016, that properly alleges
the citizenship of Defendant Power Distributing.
In addition, Plaintiff has merely alleged that he “is a resident of St. Joseph County,
Indiana.” Doc. No. 1 at 1, ¶ 1. As discussed above, residence is insufficient to establish the
citizenship of an individual. Therefore, the Court also ORDERS Plaintiff to file a jurisdictional
statement to supplement the record by September 26, 2016, that properly alleges his own
domicile, and therefore citizenship.
2
SO ORDERED.
Dated this 12th day of September, 2016.
S/Michael G. Gotsch, Sr.
Michael G. Gotsch, Sr.
United States Magistrate Judge
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?